

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"A ceasefire should ensure that hostilities are paused, weapons are silenced, and that people are safe from strikes across the strip."
Nearly 10 months into a "ceasefire" in the Gaza Strip, as Israel on Tuesday killed at least one Palestinian man with an airstrike on the Nuseirat refugee camp, Doctors Without Borders declared that "the wounds of war are not only unhealed—they are still being inflicted."
"This is not a ceasefire," said the medical charity, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), in a statement. "It is a continuation of the genocide, calibrated to be violent enough to keep Palestinians suffering every day, yet silent enough to avoid stirring international outrage."
Israeli forces have killed more than 73,300 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded over 174,009 since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel—with global experts warning the true toll is likely far higher. Local authorities have documented at least 1,200 deaths and 3,900 injuries since the ceasefire was agreed to over nine months ago.
Experts with the United Nations and others around the world have denounced the Israeli assault and blockade as a genocide, and South Africa is leading a related case at the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, over the mass slaughter.
Nearly all of Gaza's roughly 2 million survivors have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. MSF said that "the destruction of homes has not stopped with the announcement of the ceasefire. Sudden and arbitrary orders for people to flee their homes and shelters continue to be used as a tool of psychological warfare by Israeli forces."
Rajaa Jendiya, who was widowed in the "flour massacres," is living in a tent at a school-turned-displacement camp with her children. She told Middle East Eye that she often takes them to the hospital because of illnesses.
"Inside and around the school, you often see sewage water overflowing, while rubbish accumulates, attracting flies and insects," Jendiya said. "These conditions become even worse with the heat, and many times my children have developed skin diseases."
In such makeshift shelters across Gaza, "scabies, respiratory infections, rat bites, and other diseases are rife," according to MSF.
Accessing healthcare has also become difficult in the coastal strip, as Israel has killed and detained Palestinian medical providers, and bombed civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, including in the months since the ceasefire deal was reached.
As MSF detailed Tuesday:
On July 16, an Israeli strike near an MSF clinic in Al-Mawasi sent four injured people to our teams. The following day, two apartment buildings housing our staff in Gaza City were struck without warning, trapping families inside as explosions shattered windows. In one building, rubble and bodies crashed into the lower-floor apartment of an MSF staff member.
The same day, MSF teams in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza, treated 12 people—seven of whom were children—who were injured after Israeli forces struck a funeral in Al-Nuseirat. In total, this strike killed eight people and injured 20. Among those killed was the 21-year-old son of an MSF staff member. Our colleague got the news while working in another emergency room.
"These were not isolated incidents," the organization stressed, "but merely a snapshot of 48 hours in Gaza."
Israel has also limited the flow of food and medicine into the war-torn territory. Calling out the country for using humanitarian assistance "as an instrument of oppression," MSF emphasized that "the Israeli state has an obligation under international law to ensure Palestinians in Gaza have access to aid, regardless of political negotiations, military agreements, or conduct of hostilities."
Since October, when the Israel Defense Forces controlled about half of Gaza, the "yellow line" indicating IDF occupation has kept shifting, to push Palestinians into "an ever-shrinking area," MSF explained. "Today, almost 2 million Palestinians are confined to approximately 30% of the strip."
After speaking with residents in Deir al-Balah, Khan Younis, Rafah, and Gaza City's Zeitoun, Tuffah, and Shejaia neighborhoods, Reuters reported Tuesday that "Israeli forces have advanced the yellow block markers during the past 10 days, triggering new waves of displacement in areas already devastated by months of conflict."
While loading bags and mattresses onto a truck in Zeitoun, Assem Dawla told the news agency: "The whole war is displacement, displacement. You can't stay anywhere without [Israel] telling you, 'Get out of here, we want to come in.'"
Staying near the yellow line comes with risks. MSF said that "just this week, one mother told our teams that her 14-year-old son, who has Down syndrome, was shot five times by Israeli snipers near the yellow line while he was playing near his home."
"A ceasefire should ensure that hostilities are paused, weapons are silenced, and that people are safe from strikes across the strip," the group asserted. "Using it as a weapon of war and reinforcing the confinement to a fraction of Gaza cannot be justified."
A new report from Oil Change International shows that the Trump administration, the fossil fuel industry, and Big Tech are creating a perfect storm for rising energy prices as nearly 80 million people in the U.S. struggle to pay their electric bills. The administration has thrown its weight behind a massive expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and AI data centers that largely run on fossil gas. Alongside Trump’s attacks on affordable renewable energy, these policies are likely to drive demand for fossil gas to unprecedented heights, raising energy bills for families in the U.S. and the countries that import U.S. LNG.
The wholesale price of U.S. fossil gas is likely to double by the late 2030s, relative to the 2020 to 2025 average, if Trump’s AI and LNG policies succeed in pushing gas demand to levels that can only be met by more expensive gas production. New production in the Appalachian and Permian Basins can meet a portion of rising demand for fossil gas, but these relatively low-cost basins cannot produce enough gas to meet the surge in demand created by Trump’s policies.
One region in particular, called the Haynesville shale play, is expected to fill the gap. Production in the Haynesville shale play in western Louisiana and eastern Texas is expected to soar by over 130%. However, because it’s more expensive to drill in the Haynesville, where gas is harder to access, this aggressive production growth would require prices to rise.
Over the past decade, the annual average wholesale gas price (Henry Hub) was $3.18 per Million British Thermal Units (MMBTU). But analysts estimate that for gas supply from the Haynesville to grow to meet surging demand, prices will have to rise above $5. Several analysts, as well as the U.S. Energy Information Administration, project that Henry Hub prices will reach annual averages of $7 by the late 2030s.
Decisionmakers in the U.S. and across the world can protect families from out-of-control energy costs by stopping the buildout of expensive gas projects, and investing in clean, affordable renewable energy instead. Transitioning to a just renewable energy system is also critical to creating good green jobs, reducing toxic fossil fuel pollution, and safeguarding communities from deadly climate disasters.
Lorne Stockman, Research Director at Oil Change International, said:
“Trump's policies are making everyone's lives more expensive while Big Tech and the fossil fuel industry cash in. Our research shows that the cost-of-living crisis will only escalate in the coming years if Congress and government agencies don’t intervene. Our leaders must stand up to Trump, phase out LNG exports, stop the reckless data center buildout, and transition the U.S. economy off of fossil fuels to make energy affordable again.”
President Donald Trump continues his pattern of setting fire to the future by fearmongering about "communism" while denying the climate crisis his policies are turbocharging.
Yes, it’s happening and by “it” I distinctly mean climate change. No question about it, this planet is simply getting hotter (and hotter, and hotter yet). Only recently, an international team of scientists reported that greenhouse gas emissions are at an all-time high globally. And if you happened to be one of the estimated 109 million Americans living in certain parts of the Midwestern, Mid-Atlantic, or Northeastern United States recently, then you undoubtedly experienced your sky turning a grim grey (or weird orange) with smoke from those Canadian wildfires that once weren’t but now are a regular summer experience along, of course, with startling heat.
And you might not even have noticed, for instance, that Europe was blasted by heat early, hard, and in a record-setting fashion this summer with its hottest June in history. (It wasn’t a good time to take the London subway, that’s for sure!). Meanwhile, even before those Canadian fires hit, much of the Midwestern and Eastern United States experienced a record-setting heatwave (with more to come). And oh, yes, then there was that report on Legionnaire’s disease breaking out in my hometown, New York City, possibly also linked in some fashion to climate change.
And yet, explain it as you will, surging climate hell (and it does now seem to be happening ever faster), including a possible “super” El Niño weather cycle in the year to come, seldom proves to be a truly headline-making story for long, not in this country, not in the age of President Donald J. Trump. In fact, he’s distinctly into what’s coming to be known as “climate hushing.” Unfortunately, “hush” isn’t really a word that can be used effectively in any context when it comes to him, since he’s not truly quiet about anything on this planet of ours—or, these days, do I mean his?
Under the circumstances (and, yes, I’m already sweating!), consider it strange that an American president should be so visibly set on doing anything he can to ignore—oh, sorry, that’s certainly understating the situation—I guess I mean, anything he can to actively promote the further overheating of this planet of... well, I might once have said “ours” but not in the age of You Know Exactly Whom.
Neither many of the Democrats, nor Donald Trump and his—and these days it is distinctly his—party seem ready to face the world that we’re truly in as the November 2026 elections approach.
And hey, let me not simply dump all the bad karma on him, not when Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine almost four-and-a-half years ago, launching a war that still shows not the slightest sign of ending and war, of course, turns out to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a genuinely remarkable fashion. Not when Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu can’t stop blasting the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon. Not when the US Air Force almost daily continues to bomb what it considers its enemy in Somalia (something you can only hope to keep track of if you read Dave DeCamp at Antiwar.com). Not when Donald Trump (yes, him again!) just can’t stop blasting Iran (and the Iranians continue to respond by blasting their neighbors and US military bases in those countries).
And honestly, that’s just to start down a list—or do I mean to start into deep chaos?—on this distinctly crazed planet of ours. It’s generally growing ever harder to find any version of good news relating to the (yes, again!) distinctly (over)heating world we’re now living in. Under the circumstances, give China some credit. Admittedly, that country still pours more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than any other place on Earth, but in its imperial rise, it’s also taken something remarkably close to full-scale control over making (and selling globally) just about anything from solar panels to wind-turbine equipment that might effectively produce green energy or capture carbon. In fact, give China’s leadership full credit for realizing that the overheating of this planet could prove to be an imperial money-making proposition of the first order.
And yes, give President Trump credit as well. After all, in the end, he’s certain to lend imperial decline new meaning in a distinctly new age for Planet Earth. Can there be any question, in fact, that he’s intent on putting this country (and this planet, too) on the downhill slope of history, while offering China free rein (or do I mean reign?) to control the green energy market globally into what could be a distant (and, given the way things are going, distinctly devastating) future. Hey, hard as it might be to believe, he’s actually spending our taxpayer dollars to get energy companies to agree to cancel (yes, cancel!) planned offshore wind projects, so as not to offer any aid to what he’s labeled a “green scam.” And you really can’t do China a bigger favor (and the rest of us greater harm) than that, can you?
Of course, all of this would truly be funny if it weren’t so deadly serious. After all, to add to the climate mayhem, as The New York Times reported recently, the president appointed “a critic of mainstream climate science to oversee the federal government’s flagship report on how climate change affects the United States.” And why not, given that (as he’s stated more than once) climate change is a first-class “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”? As for predictions about what climate change will do to this planet of ours (no less what it’s already doing), he summed them up this way at the United Nations late last year: “They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”
Meanwhile, in the world of Donald Trump, even the Democrats seem to be in a distinctly climate-hushing mood as the November elections approach. You would think that putting the finger on him for potentially setting fire to our future would be a politically effective approach in any election season. No such luck, though, explain it as you will.
In fact, neither many of the Democrats, nor Donald Trump and his—and these days it is distinctly his—party seem ready to face the world that we’re truly in as the November 2026 elections approach. After all, as part of his campaign season, the president has reached not into the future (god forbid!) but into the American past of my childhood years by starting to call liberal Democrats “communists.” Yes, commies! At Independence Day celebrations on July 4, for instance, he said: “Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not going to let it happen.”
In fact, as The Washington Post recently reported, “From January to June, [right-wing influencers and Republicans] used the words ‘communism’ or ‘communist’ in an average of about 626 posts per week, up from around 439 per week during the same stretch last year—a 43% increase.”
In sum, how truly apocalyptic of both him and so many of the rest of us. Or perhaps it’s simply all too human of us not to want to take in the truly bad news on this planet of... well, I was going to say “ours,” but if it ever was, it really isn’t anymore, is it? And you can certainly give Donald Trump and, of course, those who decided to vote for him a second (or do I mean third?) time around significant credit for running this planet into... well, yes, the ground.
I mean, the very fact that Donald Trump was elected to run the increasingly (dis)United States of America (into the ground) a second time should still be a stunning reality on this increasingly strange planet of ours. Once upon a time, you simply couldn’t have made this up, could you (and if you had, who would possibly have believed you)?
I’m already sweating!
"He's never seen a war that he didn't like."
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday recalled Lindsey Graham's warmongering ways ahead of the late Republican senator's funeral, while once again threatening to commit more atrocities in Iran if an agreement to stop the war he and Israel started there is not reached soon.
Trump phoned in to Fox News' "Fox and Friends" morning show to laud his "great friendship" with the senator from South Carolina, who died on July 11 at the age of 71. Previously unreleased video published over the weekend shows Graham jubilant over Trump's decision to attack Iran in February and saying the president "loves blowing stuff up."
The president told "Fox and Friends" hosts: "He was very much a hawk, as you would say, on Iran. Lindsey liked war, to be honest with you."
"I said, you're a nice guy, how can you like war so much?" the president added. "He was a guy that liked war. I jokingly say—and there's nothing funny about it—but he's never seen a war that he didn't like."
Trump on Lindsey Graham: "He's never seen a war that he didn't like. He was very much into that -- you know, for good reason. He felt that way, some other people feel that way." pic.twitter.com/YbAttT8h8s
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 28, 2026
Graham had pushed for attacking Iran since at least 2010, both for strategic and financial reasons; in March, he boasted that the United States was "gonna make a ton of money" from the war.
While Graham isn't the only Republican in Congress to make inflammatory comments about Iran—just over the weekend, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana opined that "sometimes you have to kill a few chickens to scare the monkeys"—he was the most consistent cheerleader for continuing attacks on the Mideast nation.
Trump also discussed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, DC to attend Graham's funeral and make the case for continued war on Iran. Netanyahu is Trump's partner in the illegal war of choice, and is additionally wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Graham was accused of incitement to genocide for advocating the total destruction of Gaza.
Moving on during Tuesday's interview, Trump said that if the Iranian government does not agree to a deal to end the 150-day war, "then I go back and I finish the job."
Trump and Netanyahu have both been accused of sabotaging negotiations with Iran when agreements seemed nearly at hand.
The president again said he would destroy Iranian bridges and power plants if a deal is not reached soon, his latest in a string of war crime threats that has included an earlier genocidal vow to wipe out the "whole civilization" of Iran.
"I could take out most of their bridges in less than an hour," Trump claimed on Tuesday. "I could knock out the power plants within one day."
"I think of 91 million people without power, without the bridges," he said. "And there's always the desalination plants. And who am I hurting there? I'm hurting the people. So I'm not looking to do that, [but Iran] cannot have a nuclear weapon."
US and Israeli intelligence have said for decades—including during both Trump administrations—that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.
"As more of our servicemembers are killed in Iran, and energy prices continue to skyrocket here at home, Congress cannot sit on its hands."
A Democratic lawmaker in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday introduced legislation that would cut off funding for President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
In announcing the "No Funds for Illegal Wars Act," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said that it was time for the legislature to take the next steps to end the unlawful conflict Trump started in February without congressional authorization.
"As more of our servicemembers are killed in Iran, and energy prices continue to skyrocket here at home, Congress cannot sit on its hands. We have voted to end this illegal war not once, but twice—and we need to enforce the law."
Larson emphasized that his bill would not merely end funding for the illegal Iran war, which has cost tens of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The legislation, the Connecticut Democrat said, would also “block Donald Trump or any future president from waging war without explicit approval from Congress, as both the Constitution and War Powers Act require.”
Larson last week joined Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) in filing a resolution that would require House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to “initiate or intervene in litigation” to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in both chambers of Congress last month and compel the president to end the conflict.
Trump predicted that the Iran war would only last a few weeks when it began, but the conflict is now in its sixth month and the president last week said he was considering authorizing what he described as a "massive attack" on Iran that he vowed would be "bigger than ever before."
The natural gas industry is destroying the climate, and destroying people’s lungs, and it’s trying to lock us into this expensive practice for decades to come.
We talk regularly about Big Oil, but it would probably make more sense to at least occasionally refer to it as Big Gas—many of the same players are involved, of course, and the two are often found in the same places, but it’s been clear for some time that oil is not a growth industry. The rapid rise of electric vehicles in most of the world undercuts projections of future use—we’re at or near the top of the plateau now, and by 2030 or so the amount of oil we use should be going down.
That’s why the hydrocarbon industry’s growth story has been largely about natural gas. It’s used for many things—heating, cooking—but above all for generating electricity, and it’s on that ground that the fossil fuel industry has set out to build its market, stressing constantly that it is clean and cheap. Two important new reports in recent days make it clear how false those claims really are.
The first comes from a Center for Climate Integrity team led by Rebecca Leber and Rebecca John. Leber has a long record covering the industry—her 2020 report in Mother Jones about the industry paying Instagram influencers to plug natural gas was an early landmark in our understanding of pay-for-play social media, as well as the lengths the industry would go to in order to tell its fibs. (“#cookingwithgas makes food taste better,” says Camille, an LA-based foodie who poses artfully with her spatula, to her 16,700 followers.”)
But as they document in the new report, which should be read in full, this is a very old story. It turns out that the natural gas industry has been playing the PR game for a very long time. As far back as the 1950s, gas had a bad image: it was known to contribute to respiratory problems when burned indoors (more on that later!), and to local air pollution. And as scientists first started analyzing the greenhouse effect in the 1970s, most of the concern was about carbon dioxide, but there was a growing realization that methane—which is essentially what natural gas is—was the smaller but still important sibling greenhouse gas. And so the industry began doing what it did best, which is lying, or, to use the technical term, “public relations.” They constructed a whole mythology around natural gas, turning it into the fossil fuel equivalent of the “other white meat”:
In the late 1980s, the gas industry and major oil companies started to brand gas as a “bridge fuel”—a clean-burning transition fuel to a renewable energy future. In reality, they planned a long-term future for natural gas, while simultaneously undermining renewables, obstructing the destination to which gas’ “bridge” was supposed to lead. Over the next 20 years, the industry effectively solidified the bridge fuel myth by co-opting the science and oversight originally intended to keep carbon and methane emissions in check.
Working together in a growing coalition that included the oil majors and ultimately several major environmental groups, the industry managed to temper concerns about methane using strategies crafted by the same firms that for decades undermined the scientific consensus about the harms of tobacco. AGA and allied groups aggressively challenged the science around methane through industry-funded studies and the creation of the objective-sounding Gas Research Institute.
But their approach was multidimensional. While muddying the waters on the industry’s methane problem, the gas industry was careful not to deny the issue of climate change outright, instead focusing attention on carbon dioxide. It paired this with relentlessly promoting the concept of gas as clean—certainly cleaner than coal or oil—and positioning gas as a bridge fuel and climate solution. In the process, the gas industry solidified partnerships with EPA with the explicit goal of fending off regulations in favor of voluntary emissions management, while also recruiting environmental organizations that would lend legitimacy to their arguments.
I want to highlight the effectiveness of this strategy with a story about… me. In 1988, before this campaign took off, I was writing The End of Nature, sometimes called the first book for a general audience on climate change. And in it I wrote:
A common suggestion is to replace much of the coal and oil we burn with natural gas, since it produces only about half as much carbon dioxide. But it natural gas—methane—escapes into the atmosphere before it burns, it traps solar radiation more efficiently than CO2… As a result, switching to natural gas may have no effect on the greenhouse effect. It might even make it worse.
So give me credit for knowing this crucial science when I was 27.
But not really, because I think I more or less forgot it over the next two decades, as the gas industry rearranged the terms of the debate, and turned it into the lesser of two climate evils, the “bridge” to a future of cleaner energy. This argument was bought wholesale by politicians, especially Democratic ones—if you go read Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses, most of them include a paragraph praising the fracking revolution as both an economic boon and a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; we were replacing coal with something cleaner. The Sierra Club’s leader, Carl Pope, barnstormed around the country with one of the fracking industry’s chief spokespeople, promoting this “solution” to the climate crisis.
And so it seemed novel to me when two Cornell scientists, Bob Howarth and Tony Ingraffea, about 15 years ago, began publishing data showing that leak rates from fracking meant that natural gas was no cleaner than coal—the argument that had been there all along. I wrote some early pieces on their work for The New York Review of Books, and then published a long piece in The Nation that made the same point I’d made more than a quarter-century earlier:
Our combined emissions of methane and carbon dioxide have gone steadily and sharply up during the Obama years. We closed coal plants and opened methane leaks, and the result is that things have gotten worse.
I’ve made up for my forgetfulness, I think, by helping lead battles against fracking, and against the buildout of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals; those of you who have been long subscribers to this newsletter got to participate in that latter fight, which we won in the Biden years and then lost in the Trump risorgimento. But if the PR campaign flummoxed me, imagine how well it worked on people who weren’t paying much attention at all (which included virtually everyone in political life, especially Democrats who saw natural gas as a way to have their green cake and reccycle it too). Many thanks to Leber, John, and their whole team for laying the story out in all its gory detail.
The other claim about natural gas is that it’s cheap—this is the formulation that “leaders” like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul are currently relying on as they link fracked gas and affordability as an excuse to cut back on moving towards renewables, and that data center developers are using to justify a buildout of natural gas generation.
But a report out this morning from the good folks at Oil Change International puts paid to all that. It makes clear that the industry is running out of the really cheap stuff—the fracked gas from the Permian and Appalachian shales that it’s been pumping for the last two decades. Many of those wells are playing out fast, and now it’s going to need to turn to the more “geologically complex” Haynesville shale of east Texas and Louisiana, and that will drive up costs—especially since more and more of the gas is, at least theoretically, going to be exported to Asia as the industry builds out massive shipping terminals along the Gulf of Mexico:
If industry succeeds in locking in unprecedented demand for US gas by expanding exports and domestic consumption, US supply may be pushed to its limits. Gas supply can only meet such high levels of demand if prices rise to cover the higher production costs of marginal gas supplies. This connects rising dependence on gas to rising energy costs. US consumers and those in LNG-importing countries must push policymakers to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to reliable, affordable renewable energy
The numbers are fairly startling:
Between 2026 and 2040, the average wholesale price of gas could be 80% higher than during the past decade of US LNG exports, a decade when energy price volatility was already causing hardship in the US and LNG-importing countries. Prices could double relative to the 2020 to 2025 average by the late 2030s.
In other words, those politicians locking us in to natural gas are guaranteeing that our kids will spend much of their lives paying far more for energy than they should—and far more than people in the rest of the world will be spending. Because politicians in those countries are starting to wake up. A big piece in the Times yesterday described the ways that many governments are now trying to “unshackle” themselves from natural gas, after watching the supply dry up with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In the Philippines, for example:
The country’s largest solar project began delivering its first megawatts of power in March. That came two weeks after the outbreak of the Iran War, which pushed up energy prices and knocked out 20% of the global LNG supply.
“That was fortunate timing. It was like fate,” said Emmanuel Rubio, the chief executive of Meralco PowerGen, the utility-backed power generation company that operates and invests in Terra Solar and gas- and coal-fired power plants in the Philippines.
For a country that imports nearly all of its fossil fuels, the solar project has proved that “we can actually be, to a certain extent, self-reliant,” he added.
The collection of lies around natural gas are collapsing in other ways, too. Another new study, this one from an Ohio team, went back to those fears around gas and indoor air pollution that dated all the way back to the 1950s, and what it found was truly startling. As Gary Fuller summarizes, replacing a gas stove with an electric burner—say, an induction cooktop, available online for $60—reduces childhood asthma dramatically. And when I say dramatically, I mean: better than the best medicine:
Ohio’s publicly owned MetroHealth began the study in December 2024 but funding was terminated early by the incoming Trump administration. It had been designed to investigate if replacing gas cooking improved asthma for 1,200 people living near Cleveland, Ohio.
Prof Ash Sehgal of Case Western Reserve University, the project’s leader, said: “We had completed the project at fewer than 100 households. As a result, over 1,100 households were unable to benefit. We also had to lay off about 20 project staff.”
The team finished the stove replacements that were underway and closed the project, but to the researchers’ surprise, the benefits could be clearly detected even in the scaled-down study of 72 homes.
Sehgal said: “We were surprised when we analysed the results and found a very large effect size. The improvements in asthma symptoms following stove change were similar to–or even greater than–those reported in clinical trials of commonly used asthma medications.”
Angela Bland, a 38-year-old resident of Akron, Ohio, said: “I didn’t realize my gas stove was the issue until I used the electric stove. I now need my inhaler way less often.”
If you want more on this study, check out Sammy Roth’s Climate Colored Goggles newsletter. He interviewed Segal too: “Our improvement was about twice as much as you typically see with medical treatment of asthma,” the researcher said. It truly is remarkable to think how much good we could do simply by dousing the campfire that most people have in their kitchen.
Anyway, to summarize: The natural gas industry is destroying the climate, and destroying people’s lungs, and it’s trying to lock us into this expensive practice for decades to come.
Any effort to slow it down is met with massive resistance. In Colorado, for instance, some towns have tried to prevent gas hookups in new buildings, requiring them to go all-electric. The industry has responded by organizing on behalf of a constitutional amendment called the “Right to Natural Gas,” which will go on the November ballot. As Maya McDaniel writes:
The proposed amendment states that “producers and utilities have the right to sell natural gas to homes and businesses.” That could force changes to building codes that encourage electric heating and cooking, undoing progress toward electrification.
“Really, it’s just a cynical attempt to lock fossil fuel industry profits into the state constitution,” said Kelly Nordini, CEO of Conservation Colorado, an environmental nonprofit. “That’s bad for people’s pocketbooks, for clean air, for clean water; it has no provisions for public health or safety.”
Really, the first lucky break for natural gas came back in the 19th century, when it acquired that moniker, to differentiate it from “manufactured” or “town” gas, made by burning coal in the absence of air, and then piped through municipalities for street lighting and other tasks. These gasworks shut down as big deposits of naturally occurring gas were discovered, hence the name.
I’ve taken to calling it ‘fracked gas’ in recent years, since that industry term for the new methods of liberating the fuel from tight rocks makes it sound almost as disgusting as it is. “Fossil gas” works too, or perhaps “asthma gas.” But our job is to make it a dirty word of some kind. The future depends on it.
In the final debate before Michigan's pivotal Democratic Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayed continued to hammer on the idea that his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, is "bought off" by AIPAC and corporate-funded super PACs.
Progressive US Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed spent Monday night's final Democratic primary debate in Michigan continuing to hammer on his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens' backing from big money donors.
With just a week before Michiganders head to the polls, Stevens has emphasized her supposed electability against presumptive Republican nominee former Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat, which could decide the balance of power in the Senate.
While El-Sayed has consistently dominated in fundraising from individual contributors, particularly small-dollar donors, he is still dramatically outgunned by Stevens in terms of overall financial support.
Six aligned super PACs have reserved roughly $60 million to run ads boosting her—more than half of which comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-affiliated super political action committee (PAC) the United Democracy Project.
This tidal wave of outside funding has appeared to help Stevens remain competitive with El-Sayed after initially trailing him. But on the debate stage Monday, former Detroit public health official El-Sayed—who has made removing big money from politics a central campaign plank—argued that the spending cuts against Stevens' claim that she is more "electable" than him.
Along with the Senate filibuster, which he said would allow Republicans to stymy ambitious agenda items like Medicare for All and labor protection bills like the PRO Act, El-Sayed argued that "money in politics" was among the biggest "risks to our democracy."
He pointed to the super PAC-funded "attack ads that you've seen, probably in the last commercial break itself" that "change our political system." He then called out Stevens directly.
"When you ask $60 million to come into a race for you, and then say that somehow you're electable, I think you don't quite understand what electability means," El-Sayed said. "If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can't be elected on your own terms."
Both El-Sayed and Stevens are shown to be slightly ahead of Rogers in polls for a hypothetical November matchup.
While Stevens has claimed that Rogers views El-Sayed as an easier opponent, one aggregate of four recent polls by 270ToWin shows El-Sayed leading the Republican by about 2.5 percentage points on average compared to Stevens, who leads by about 1.3 points on average.
El-Sayed, who has made a point of swearing off corporate backers, hit on the idea that Stevens was "bought off" repeatedly throughout the night.
He noted the $45,000 in direct support her campaigns had received since 2019 from the increasingly loathed Michigan energy monopoly DTE, as well as her support from super PACs backed by donors in the health insurance and tech industries.
Responding to Stevens’ message about the need to lower prices for ordinary people, El-Sayed said, “I don’t take money from the corporations who are jacking up your prices in the first place.”
He also pointed to her vote last week to preserve $3.3 billion in military aid for Israel while more than half of her Democratic colleagues voted for an amendment that would have cut off the support.
El-Sayed said it showed that AIPAC, which has grown overwhelmingly unpopular with Democratic voters disgusted by Israel's actions, had dumped $46 million behind Stevens because “they know she’ll be a reliable vote."
Stevens largely sidestepped questions about her super PAC support, instead hitting back at El-Sayed for campaigning with "senators who’ve come in here from the coast," like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who she said lack an understanding of "what makes our state tick."
She emphasized her "experience" over El-Sayed as a four-term congresswoman and as “Michigan’s manufacturing geek” who'd bring a "unique understanding" of the state's issues to Congress.
"I don't think there's much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me," Stevens said, ignoring that outside spending to back Stevens throughout the primary outpaces the amount supporting El-Sayed by about 18-to-1, according to the latest totals from AdImpact.
While polling for next Tuesday's primary has been all over the map, showing leads for both El-Sayed and Stevens in recent weeks, an unscientific online poll from Fox 2 Detroit indicated that El-Sayed was viewed overwhelmingly as the winner of Monday's debate.
“The trauma, frustration, and despair are palpable—but so too is the demand for justice, which I heard resoundingly," said Volker Türk after visiting Lebanon.
Pointing to the mass forced displacement of at least 1 million Lebanese people, the denial of returns, and the widespread destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure since the Israel Defense Forces began attacking the armed group Hezbollah in the regional conflict stemming from the Israeli-US war on Iran, the United Nations' top human rights official reported Monday that the assault on Lebanon could amount to "war crimes."
Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, spoke after a trip to Lebanon where he met with government representatives, local and international civil society groups, and people who have been forced to flee their homes due to the conflict, in which Israel is continuing to occupy parts of southern Lebanon and to attack residential neighborhoods despite a ceasefire that was brokered on June 26.
"The Israeli military continues to kill and injure people in Lebanon, with continued airstrikes and ground operations," said Türk. "My office has recorded large-scale violations of international humanitarian law, some possibly amounting to war crimes. Under certain circumstances, they may also constitute crimes under international law."
When Israel began retaliating against Hezbollah on March 2 for the group's attacks that had been in response to the war on Iran, the IDF issued "evacuation warnings to residents of more than 53 villages and densely populated areas in Lebanon and intensified airstrikes forced families across Lebanon to flee within minutes," according to the UN Refugee Agency.
Israeli officials have said they aim to model their operations in Lebanon on the destruction of Gaza over the past 32 months. The IDF has also established a self-declared "security zone," advancing six miles into Lebanon and taking control of about one-fifth of the country's territory, first ordering people in southern Lebanon to move north of the Litani River and then pushing past that point.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz recently boasted about the IDF's demolishing of 24 villages "that had existed for hundreds of years," saying: "The army systematically flattened the villages with bulldozers and explosives. 90% of the houses are gone. Between 15,000 and 20,000 homes have been destroyed.”
On Sunday the Lebanese military said Israeli forces were continuing shelling in the southern part of the country, preventing the military from taking control of the villages there as the agreement reached last month had stipulated.
Al Jazeera reported that residents of the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiya "had returned to homes of rubble" after having been displaced.
More than 4,300 people in Lebanon have been killed in Israeli attacks and more than 12,000 have been injured. More than 135 healthcare workers are among those who have been killed, Türk emphasized on Monday, as well as a number of journalists and media workers.
“I am struck by the widespread damage and compounded suffering that I have seen," Türk said. “The trauma, frustration, and despair are palpable—but so too is the demand for justice, which I heard resoundingly.”
The human rights official spoke about a victim he met during his visit to a school that had been repurposed as a shelter for about 1,000 people who'd fled violence. The man had lost his mother and brother in Israeli strikes on their residential building in Beirut, and was determined to seek justice and accountability.
“Even from this darkness, there is an opportunity. We are mobilizing in a way that we have not done before, through documenting [violations]," the man told Türk.
Türk also heard about how "ongoing demolitions have flattened homes, schools, healthcare facilities, water distribution networks, electricity infrastructure, places of worship, and agricultural land."
The official gave his assessment of Israel's destruction of Lebanon days after Israel and its top military funder, the US, attempted unsuccessfully to sink his nomination to serve a second term as the UN's human rights commissioner.
Türk has condemned Israel's US-backed destruction of Gaza, the war on Iran, and President Donald Trump's “abuse and denigration of migrants and refugees” in the US.
Despite the powerful countries' objections and attempts to delay the vote, UN member states on Friday voted 144-10, with 13 abstentions, to give Türk another four-year term.
“Human rights are the antidote to today’s turbulence and defeatism," said Türk after the vote. "I will give my all for the rights of everyone, everywhere."
"A trip to the grocery store shouldn’t spell dread for New Yorkers," said New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani pledged on Monday that city-run grocery stores set to debut next year will offer 30% cheaper prices on staple items such as eggs, chicken, and fruits and vegetables.
The discount could save New Yorkers—who have been hit hard by rising food costs—around $1,000 per year, the city's Economic Development Corporation has estimated.
“Every week, New Yorkers walk into a grocery store hoping the prices haven’t gone up again," Mamdani said during a press conference at the Campaign Against Hunger's food distribution center in Brooklyn.
"A trip to the grocery store shouldn’t spell dread for New Yorkers," the mayor continued. "That’s why we are guaranteeing a 30% discount on the most common and most critical groceries for families across the five boroughs—including eggs, milk, chicken, and fresh fruits and vegetables. In a city that’s defined by unpredictability, you deserve stability—no matter what aisle you’re in.”
New York City officials have presented the municipal grocery stores—which are not a novel idea but became a signature plank of Mamdani's mayoral campaign—as a potential model for other major American cities whose residents are struggling with high costs.
"This administration is building a grocery store model that puts affordability first, with a 30% discount on essential foods and quality jobs for the people who run these stores," Julie Su, New York City's deputy mayor for economic justice, said on Monday. "That’s what it means to make this city work for working people.”
New York City has committed $70 million in capital to fund store construction. According to officials, the city "will provide the foundation and deliver grocery-ready sites, cover rent and property taxes, fund initial buildout, and establish a single public brand for all NYC Groceries locations."
The first store is set to open in 2027 in the Bronx.
"All five stores—one per borough—will be open by the end of the mayor’s first term, including La Marqueta in East Harlem," Mamdani's office said on Monday.
"The White House and Pentagon have so far refused any accountability or transparency," said CNN host Jake Tapper.
Tuesday marks five months since the US carried out a deadly attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in the city of Minab, Iran, which killed more than 150 schoolchildren along with over a dozen teachers.
The US Department of Defense (DOD), however, has yet to release the results of the investigation it said it was conducting on the strike.
In a Tuesday social media post, CNN host Jake Tapper highlighted the DOD's silence about the school attack, noting that "the White House and Pentagon have so far refused any accountability or transparency."
Tapper then posted a timeline of accumulated evidence that the US was responsible for the deadly strike, while also including a quote from Rachel VanLandingham, a retired official from the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG), who said "it's atrocious that we haven't had an acknowledgement, an explanation, and an apology yet" from the Pentagon.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that the investigation into the school bombing was essentially complete, and it found that US military commanders "bypassed warnings" indicating that their database of strike targets inside Iran was badly out of date shortly before authorizing the attack on the building.
Two of CNN’s sources said senior commanders ignored the warnings out of “expediency,” as they did not want to significantly delay providing target lists during the outset of the war, which Trump illegally launched in February without authorization from the US Congress.
A group of experts at the United Nations last week renewed calls for the US to release the findings of its probe into the school bombing, noting that the US has "obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law."
“Five months following the school bombing in Minab, the US and Israel have not made any findings public, raising valid questions regarding the impartiality, effectiveness and transparency of any investigation that may be underway,” they said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Two weeks ago, a group of 25 Democratic US senators sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pressing him to release the results of the Pentagon investigation and to submit to Congress a "prevention and remediation plan that identifies the specific corrective actions the Department will take to ensure this does not happen again."
"The United States military has a legal and moral obligation to take all feasible precautions to prevent civilian harm," the senators wrote. "When a U.S. strike kills civilians, the Department owes Congress, the American people, and the victims’ families a clear accounting of what happened and a credible plan to prevent future failures."
"Since Trump took office last year, his office has been repeatedly blocked from sharing previously public data," said one expert of Marc Rosenblum.
A top immigration policy expert accused a right-wing online news source of spreading an "outrageous lie" on Monday about the US Department of Homeland Security's top statistician, who resigned over the weekend and cited President Donald Trump's "war on immigrants" as a major reason for his departure.
America First Post wrote in a post on social media that Marc Rosenblum, who until recently was the executive director of the DHS Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS), "easily could’ve been underreporting deportations or illegal populations, ruining data."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, countered that Rosenblum sought under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration to publish "the most transparent data on immigration enforcement ever; monthly information on [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection] arrests and removals, stuff that had NEVER been published before."
Such data has not been published since the first days of Trump's second term in the White House, said Reichlin-Melnick, as the president has ramped up deportation operations and federal agents have violently carried out his anti-immigration agenda—arresting more than 10,000 people in a recent five-day span and killing at least 11 people during enforcement operations.
In a post on LinkedIn, Rosenblum wrote that over 10 years, the team he managed at OHSS grew from 11 people to 45 people under the Biden administration.
"We matured official data processing to update monthly," wrote Rosenblum. "We launched new lines of daily and weekly internal reports. We massively expanded our analytic capacity."
"My OHSS co-workers are outstanding career federal civil servants. They are smart, mission-focused experts who produce high-quality results in a challenging and often hostile work environment," he continued. "But it will come as no surprise that I’m thrilled to end my relationship with the current administration. Between the war on immigrants, the war on feds, and the war on facts (not to mention the crazy war in Iran and the brazen corruption), I just need a change."
Daniel Delgado, a former DHS deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy, said the department was "far better off for the work that Marc accomplished, no matter how hard the current incompetent leadership try to hide it."
David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute—which has found that the majority of immigration arrests made last year were of people who had no criminal convictions—told NOTUS last November that under the Trump administration, DHS was providing "no accountability, no way to assess, no public understanding about what’s really going on that is not curated by a press release from the agency."
Reichlin-Melnick has also frequently spoken out about the lack of data being publicly released by DHS to back up its claims about immigration arrests.
While DHS has repeatedly claimed in public statements that its agents are getting "the worst of the worst off our streets," the agency's own "Worst of the Worst" database released late last year showed less than 10,000 people who had been arrested—a tiny fraction of the 220,000 people who had been detained by federal agents up to that point.
"Marc Rosenblum was one of the most dedicated civil servants I’ve ever met, a man who spent his career working to get DHS to share more data," said Reichlin-Melnick. "Since Trump took office last year, his office has been repeatedly blocked from sharing previously public data."